The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that adults who enter into voluntary marriages are entitled to state protection against familial harassment, reinforcing that the right to life under Article 21 encompasses personal autonomy in matters of love and marriage. This ruling provides immediate legal recourse for couples facing threats under the guise of "honor."
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Sangita and her spouse, are major individuals who voluntarily entered into a marital relationship. Their families oppose the union, leading to repeated threats and harassment. The petitioners submitted photocopies of their Aadhaar cards and academic records to establish their majority, along with photographs of their marriage ceremony as evidence of consent and union.
Procedural History
The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution after local authorities failed to provide adequate protection. No criminal complaint had been registered prior to this writ, and no formal inquiry had been initiated by police despite repeated appeals for safety.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought immediate police protection to prevent physical harm, intimidation, or abduction by family members. They requested that the state ensure their safety while they reside together and pursue their marital life without fear.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to police protection for major individuals who have entered into a voluntary marriage, despite familial opposition.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Shri Prabhanshu Kamal argued that the petitioners’ right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 includes the freedom to choose a life partner. He relied on Lata Singh v. State of U.P. to assert that societal or familial disapproval cannot override constitutional rights. He further cited Shakti Vahini v. Union of India to emphasize the state’s affirmative duty to protect couples from honor-based violence.
For the Respondent
The State did not contest the petitioners’ majority or the voluntary nature of the marriage. The Panel Lawyer conceded that no legal bar existed against the union but argued that police protection should be granted only upon formal complaint and verification of threat. However, no substantive opposition was raised to the core constitutional claim.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the evolution of jurisprudence on personal autonomy in marriage, beginning with Lata Singh v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court held that "adults have the right to marry whomever they wish, and no one has the right to interfere." The Court then turned to Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, which established that the state has a constitutional obligation to prevent honor-based violence and must proactively safeguard couples at risk.
"If the petitioners are major and have entered into the marriage voluntarily, then they should not be harassed by any one just because they have objection with their marriage."
The Court rejected the notion that police protection must await a formal FIR or criminal complaint. It recognized that the threat of honor-based violence often manifests through psychological coercion and intimidation, which may deter victims from filing complaints. The Court emphasized that the right to life includes protection from foreseeable harm, even when such harm is not yet physical.
The Court further held that the petitioners’ documentary evidence - Aadhaar cards and marriage photographs - was sufficient to establish majority and voluntary union. The burden of proving coercion or minority lay with the objecting parties, not the petitioners.
The Verdict
The petitioners prevailed. The Court held that Article 21 mandates state protection for major individuals in voluntary marriages facing familial threats. The petitioners were directed to approach the Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh, with their documents, and police were ordered to act immediately if a threat is verified, in accordance with Shakti Vahini.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Police Protection Is Not Discretionary
- Practitioners must now argue that police protection is a constitutional entitlement, not a favor, when major couples face credible threats of honor-based violence.
- Failure to act upon verified threats may constitute a violation of Article 21, inviting judicial review.
Documentary Evidence Suffices for Preliminary Relief
- Photocopies of Aadhaar, school records, and photographs of marriage ceremonies are admissible to establish majority and voluntary union at the interim stage.
- Courts will not require formal marriage certificates to grant protection under Article 21.
State Must Act Proactively, Not Reactively
- Police cannot wait for an FIR before intervening in cases of potential honor-based violence.
- SHOs and Superintendents must conduct preliminary inquiries upon receipt of credible claims, even without formal complaints.
